@Helix This was exactly the business of a few Linux distro a while back, when people bought CDs and other physical supports. They'd sell the exact same open source packages that you could get from the web, except at the time that wasn't convenient so a few people did buy them -- and paid for the convenience, nothing else. As far as I remember, this was even applauded by the open source community as making Linux more accessible (to those without an internet access). Actually, this is essentially how the notion of distros started out, and how Red Hat made its name!

So I think there should be absolutely 0 obstacle to doing that on an app store, the reasoning is for me exactly the same.

Whether you'll actually make any money out of it is another question (*), but I don't see anything preventing you from trying.

(*) especially given that, if it starts to work, many other people will do the same as the effort is minimal, contrary to physical medias that had to be produced and distributed, so did require some investment.

Since windows store can now have win32 apps using project centennial, what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

I will even put a link to the original source code in the package readme somewhere.

I've highlighted the only part that might be illegal. Most (all?) open source licenses still prohibit you from changing the copyright notice and license. You can package an open source program and say "this is a package for XYZ that I've made", but you can't say, or most likely imply, that you own the copyright for the program itself.

@Maciejasjmj Around here, most of the "free CDs" came when buying the magazine that produced them. So while the CDs itself were "free" (i.e. that issue of the magazine was not more expensive than other issues), you were still paying to get them...

And I probably have a couple of them somewhere... I clean the computer-stuff closet from time to time, but given that I remember still having a box of floppies, I don't see why there shouldn't also be a couple of commercial Linux CDs in there as well...

I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version

Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall

Installer installs app plus some adware

I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.

@remi Depends on the license. You could probably get away with it if the code is MIT or BSD licensed, but if it's GPL, good fudging luck.

GPL does not prevent you to package it or we won't have those .dpkg or .rpm files.

It allows you to charge for redistribute it (presumably to cover the cost of redistribution) but you cannot sell license for it. (i.e.: You cannot sue people for gather the package and install without paying you)

@accalia In the sense that the 'install' basically just copies things to a directory, and can't do much else, it's perhaps 2% better than MSI at not doing random other stuff. You just have to put it in the same directory, and then have the main executable also launch your evil malware.

Still, if it's even slightly harder to do, that's not a bad thing.

Haikus are quite fun
though I do them rather wrong
enjoy them, you fools

Note that despite their chosen license allowing it, they'd probably bitch and moan constantly about what you're doing if you're not "giving back enough." Hey idiots, if you wanted people to give back, maybe you picked a dumb software license.

@accalia In the sense that the 'install' basically just copies things to a directory, and can't do much else, it's perhaps 2% better than MSI at not doing random other stuff. You just have to put it in the same directory, and then have the main executable also launch your evil malware.

Still, if it's even slightly harder to do, that's not a bad thing.

so the shovelware install just happens on first run of the executable instead of on install from the app store.

I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version

Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall

Installer installs app plus some adware

I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.

I would check with the original author of the software so that he won't go all defensive and start filing disputes. Then again, with some people it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission.

@Helix This was exactly the business of a few Linux distro a while back, when people bought CDs and other physical supports. They'd sell the exact same open source packages that you could get from the web, except at the time that wasn't convenient

I know I installed Linux that way, about 15 years ago (SuSE 6.something, to be precise). Working out what you even need, downloading it all over an ISDN-2 line, and then making it work — or go to a store and buy one box with half a dozen CD-ROMs that come with a convenient installer program? I’ll pay at the counter rather than to the phone company, thanks.

I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version

Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall

Installer installs app plus some adware

I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.

You are right but phrased it slightly wrong. The appdata and the registry it can write to are copies. The writes and reads are redirected. Other folders it touches are not redirected, that's true.

I was thinking about the odd opensource apps i use and the worst things about ones i use most are:

None or lousy mechanism to update to latest version

Installer/app puts stuff everywhere and doesn't wipe up after itself on uninstall

Installer installs app plus some adware

I believe the sandboxing that project centennial does provides solution to issues 1 and 2, and users will trust 3 not to happen from windows store.

About (2). No. Remember, a win32-store app is a Full Trust app. It can write ANYWHERE on the system it wants to. If it stays within appdata and the registry (in other words, inside its sandbox), it will be fully cleansed on uninstall.

You are right but phrased it slightly wrong. The appdata and the registry it can write to are copies. The writes and reads are redirected. Other folders it touches are not redirected, that's true.

True. I was just writing that from the uninstall perspective. Life gets "interesting" if you have a database in localappdata and you switch from a desktop install to a winstore one. (We moved the DB in an app update just before the store version was released)

But at the same time, Win32 apps probably would need extra work to get them to display right.

Of course. Because there's nothing special about going into the store that changes anything. At all. If DPI doesn't work in the desktop version, it won't work in the store version. What you do get is access to adding UWP features to the desktop app. (We're doing it by wrapping api calls behind a LoadLib'd dll)

How does "Tivoization", which by the way is probably the stupidiest term the open source community has ever come up with, address the scenario in this post? AFAIK that only applies to devices that have some form of DRM in their firmware to prevent new code from being added.

How does "Tivoization", which by the way is probably the stupidiest term the open source community has ever come up with, address the scenario in this post? AFAIK that only applies to devices that have some form of DRM in their firmware to prevent new code from being added.

what is to stop me packaging up an open source app, with a very minor tweak and publishing it as mine?

I think there is something in the copyright law which might classify that as plagiarism.

And nope. MIT/BSD/X11 licenses do not waive authorship. They even explicitly tell you to list the original authors.

I don't think plagiarism is actually covered in any way that isn't equivalent to copyright, trademark, or similar violations (in US law). You could publish Shakespeare's plays under your name and not have done anything illegal in the US, I believe. See, e.g., this:

If you copy from a public domain writing, do you have to credit the author? The United States Supreme Court has answered “No,” holding that there is no legal requirement to provide any attribution when public domain works are copied and placed into new works. (Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 123 S.Ct. 2041 (2003).)

However, just because there is no legal requirement to give credit to the creators of public domain works, that doesn’t mean you don’t have to do it. When copying works from the public domain, be careful to avoid plagiarism. Plagiarism occurs when someone poses as the originator of words he did not write, ideas he did not conceive, or facts he did not discover. Although you cannot be sued for plagiarizing a public domain work, doing so can result in serious professional and personal penalties. For example, in the case of college professors and journalists, it may result in termination; for students, it could lead to expulsion; if done by well-known historians, it can result in public humiliation.